DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 8, Applicant requires “obtaining a distance, on a drive output-flow rate plane indicating a relation between the drive output and flow rate, between a coordinate on the drive output-flow rate plane of the drive output and the flow rate in the perfusion state at normal time of the conduit and a coordinate on the drive output-flow rate plane on the drive output and the flow rate that are actual drive output and flow rate; and determining abnormality of the perfusion state based on whether the distance exceeds a first threshold.” It is unclear how this is related to the obtaining and detecting steps introduced in claim 1. Specifically if the steps in claim 8 are considered sufficient to meet the limitations in claim 1, or the limitations in claim 8 are additional to those in claim 1. This is primarily a result of the antecedent basis, for example both claims 1 and 8 require “a distance”, making it unclear how they are related; and then the end of claim 8 requires “the distance” making it unclear to which “a distance” it is referring.
Claim 9 has a similar issue to claim 8, it is unclear if the steps of claim 9 are considered sufficient to meet the limitations in claim 1, or the limitation in claim 9 are additional to those in claim 1; as well as antecedent issues.
Claim 10 has a similar issue to claims 8 and 9, it is unclear if the steps of claim 10 are considered sufficient to meet the limitations in claim 1, or the limitation in claim 10 are additional to those in claim 1; as well as antecedent issues.
Claim 11 is a single claim which claims both an apparatus and a method step. Such is indefinite because it is not directed to the system, but the actions of a user, which creates confusion as to when direct infringement occurs. See MPEP 2173.05(p). In particular it requires “a liquid feeding conduit inserted into an inside of a living body”, a method step.
Claims 13-15 have the same issues as claims 8-10 in that it is unclear if the limitations are part of or in addition to the limitations of the independent claim, as well as antecedent issues.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 and 17 are allowed (as well as 8-16 once the 112 issues are resolved).
The examiner did not find a teaching or suggestion for modifying closest art Brugger et al (US 2001/0021817) such that it comprises obtaining a distance, on a plane indicating a relation between any two values of a drive output to the suction pump, a flow rate of the liquid flowing through the conduit, and a pressure in the conduit, between a coordinate on the plane of the two values in a perfusion state at normal time of the conduit and a coordinate on the plane of the two values actually measured; and detecting abnormality of the perfusion state based on whether the distance exceeds a threshold, in addition to the other limitations. Brugger discloses using the actual flow rate and actual power/current of the drive output compared to an expected value and the difference being a threshold to detect a blockage (said blockage being an abnormality of the perfusion state), but does not disclose using those data points as part of obtaining a distance of two coordinates on a plane indicating a relation between such values as claimed, absent impermissible hindsight.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY JAMES OSINSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3640. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 9AM to 5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Tsai can be reached at (571)270-5246. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRADLEY J OSINSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights